IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[dawny0826]

Ok, so what did they do? They scrutinized applications for tax exempt status to determine whether or not the applicants were eligible. That's their job. To make their job more efficient, some staff took an inappropriate short cut and threw all the tea party applications on the "request further info" pile. This all happened during the Bush administration. The IRS recently brought the problem to light, apologized to the affected groups and revised their policies and procedures.

Is any part of this summary factually incorrect, in your view?

All the rest of this "story" (OMG FREE SPEECH IS UNDER ATTACK!!!) is spin, spin, spin.

I actually read this situation a little differently. I think that the "lower level workers" who the IRS is blaming, just worked out a logical system for sorting through appliations. It didn't read to me like these folks really did anything "insensitive" or off base. The IRS is dragging their own employees under a bus and it's sad. If I was one of the "lower level" Cincinnati workers, I'd be ****** as hell. These people report to someone and I doubt very seriously that they were working on their own accord without a directive from folks higher in the food chain.

I'm less ****** about the filing/sorting system of these applications as I am the fact that someone, somewhere told these folks to single out these applications in the first place. Why? Why were conservative groups being targeted in the first place.

They are admitting that wrongful practices were implemented. The IRS itself had a gripe somewhere and insisted that these wrongful practices be implemented. So, it's not as easy as sweeping things under the rug and saying..."but they're apologizing, so, it's okay. They're just doing their job."

No. We elect our government officials and if the IRS, a government agency, screws Americans unfairly, Americans are going to object. We have every right to. We're paying taxes to keep these ******** in business.

You make it appear like such an easy issue to forgive as if those who object to what's been done, primarily conservatives, I'm sure, are out of line if they don't just accept the apology and move on.

This is an example of how big government negately impacts the lives of Americans.

 

[Alceste]

I actually read this situation a little differently. I think that the "lower level workers" who the IRS is blaming, just worked out a logical system for sorting through appliations. It didn't read to me like these folks really did anything "insensitive" or off base. The IRS is dragging their own employees under a bus and it's sad. If I was one of the "lower level" Cincinnati workers, I'd be ****** as hell. These people report to someone and I doubt very seriously that they were working on their own accord without a directive from folks higher in the food chain.

I'm less ****** about the filing/sorting system of these applications as I am the fact that someone, somewhere told these folks to single out these applications in the first place. Why? Why were conservative groups being targeted in the first place.

They are admitting that wrongful practices were implemented. The IRS itself had a gripe somewhere and insisted that these wrongful practices be implemented. So, it's not as easy as sweeping things under the rug and saying..."but they're apologizing, so, it's okay. They're just doing their job."

No. We elect our government officials and if the IRS, a government agency, screws Americans unfairly, Americans are going to object. We have every right to. We're paying taxes to keep these ******** in business.

You make it appear like such an easy issue to forgive as if those who object to what's been done, primarily conservatives, I'm sure, are out of line if they don't just accept the apology and move on.

This is an example of how big government negately impacts the lives of Americans.

I think it's a manufactured controversy. I don't think there's anything outrageous about the facts, as we know them. It doesn't appear to me that anyone was targeted on an uniform, institutional scale specifically for the content of their political speech. Rather, it seems to me that the definitions for what constitutes political activity were unclear and employees were left to their own devices figuring out which applications were legit and which were not.

Yes, many of the groups were conservative, but still that only represents about 25% of the groups that were subjected to additional documentation requirements. What about the other 75%? Who were they? If the point of this additional scrutiny was to suppress the political speech of conservatives, they had a pretty crappy batting average, IMO.

Also, the elephant in the room is that the Tea Party groups are primarily political fundraising and campaigning operations who work on behalf of Tea Party affiliated Republican political candidates. So it's reasonable to conclude that the IRS employees who subjected them to additional scrutiny were acting in good faith, motivated by a professional desire to make a fair determination of whether the groups were eligible for this tax exempt status, rather than an organized campaign to intimidate them or suppress their political speech.

I don't think there's anything to forgive, personally. I think the outrage, hyperbole, misrepresentation and hysteria on the right is just what they do these days, how they communicate. It no longer indicates that anything interesting actually happened. It's been going downhill since Clinton's blow job. Benghazi. Obama's birth certificate. Sandra Fluke's sex life. Now this. Much ado about nothing.

 

[dawny0826]

I think it's a manufactured controversy. I don't think there's anything outrageous about the facts, as we know them. It doesn't appear to me that anyone was targeted on an uniform, institutional scale specifically for the content of their political speech. Rather, it seems to me that the definitions for what constitutes political activity were unclear and employees were left to their own devices figuring out which applications were legit and which were not.

Initially, I thought so too and even deleted my first post, which reflected sentiments along those lines.

My understanding from the articles is that the problem is that these applications were placed under greater scrutiny simply because they were submitted by groups from conservative affiliations. They were then placed under additional screening, which other groups at the time were not placed under, hence the IRS's apology, as this wasn't warranted practice.

I don't fault the workers, because I know that these people had someone that they reported to who was ultimately accountable.

My problem with this, as an American is how this translates to your day to day life and your perception of a government agency that is designed to serve your country. This isn't okay. I can't trust that the IRS is going to handle applications from organizations applying for non-profit status in the manner that they need to, fairly. And this is very important to me, working for a non-profit organization, being a Libertarian, believing very strongly that this nation needs non-profit networks in our communities to help those in need.

I'm not even talking about the political piece to this, necessarily. I'm upset by the fact that our government can fail us and we're paying for them to fail us, and the expectation is that they can just sweep it under the rug and it's no big deal.

It is a big deal, particularly when you're someone who is passionate about the impact that a non-profit can make in your community. It's a great issue to some of us than just this one incident, which appears small and perhaps not such a big deal to you.

Yes, many of the groups were conservative, but still that only represents about 25% of the groups that were subjected to additional documentation requirements. What about the other 75%? Who were they? If the point of this additional scrutiny was to suppress the political speech of conservatives, they had a pretty crappy batting average, IMO.

I'm aware of this. My greatest upset isn't with the specifics of the filing, the sorting, etc. I'm a little ticked that any group would be purposefully singled out without justification. It's an abuse of power, given to them by the American people. I don't fault the IRS for normal screening procedures and for any red flag procedures that are in place. That's not the issue here and it's moot to keep going back to this.

Also, the elephant in the room is that the Tea Party groups are primarily political fundraising and campaigning operations who work on behalf of Tea Party affiliated Republican political candidates. So it's reasonable to conclude that the IRS employees who subjected them to additional scrutiny were acting in good faith, motivated by a professional desire to make a fair determination of whether the groups were eligible for this tax exempt status, rather than an organized campaign to intimidate them or suppress their political speech.

I don't think the workers are at fault. I think the worker bees were doing what they felt they needed to do. The IRS as a government entity, screwed up and in my opinion, should have taken responsibility without throwing a specific group of employees under the bus. "Low level workers" aren't working without directives.

I don't think there's anything to forgive, personally. I think the outrage, hyperbole, misrepresentation and hysteria on the right is just what they do these days, how they communicate. It no longer indicates that anything interesting actually happened. It's been going downhill since Clinton's blow job. Benghazi. Obama's birth certificate. Sandra Fluke's sex life. Now this. Much ado about nothing.

That's fine. You aren't obligated to forgive. You're also not an American and do not have to contend with the IRS as Americans do.

I've been ready for change for a long time now and the change that we have representing us isn't the type of change that I want for America. I agree with you. It's all going downhill and I'm fearful that it may be a very very long time before we see uphill strides.

Edit: Though I know you're specifically referencing media. I think it attests to deeper issues.

The world should wise up. When we go to hell in a hand basket, a lot of folks are going to sink with us.

 

[Alceste]

Initially, I thought so too and even deleted my first post, which reflected sentiments along those lines.

My understanding from the articles is that the problem is that these applications were placed under greater scrunity simply because they were submitted by groups from conservative affiliations. They were then placed under additional screening, which other groups at the time were not placed under, hence the IRS's aplogy, as this wasn't warranted practice.

I don't fault the workers, because I know that these people had someone that they reported to who was ultimately accountable.

My problem with this, as an American is how this translates to your day to day life and your perception of a government agency that is designed to serve your country. This isn't okay. I can't trust that the IRS is going to handle applications from organizations applying for non-profit status in the manner that they need to, fairly. And this is very important to me, working for a non-profit organization, being a Libertarian, believing very strongly that this nation needs non-profit networks in our communities to help those in need.

I'm not even talking about the political piece to this, necessarily. I'm upset by the fact that our government can fail us and we're paying for them to fail us, and the expectation is that they can just sweep it under the rug and it's no big deal.

It is a big deal, particularly when you're someone who is passionate about the impact that a non-profit can make in your community. It's a great issue to some of us than just this one incident, which appears small and perhaps not such a big deal to you.



I'm aware of this. My greatest upset isn't with the specifics of the filing, the sorting, etc. I'm a little ticked that any group would be purposefully singled out without justification. It's an abuse of power, given to them by the American people. I don't fault the IRS for normal screening procedures and for any red flag procedures that are in place. That's not the issue here and it's moot to keep going back to this.



I don't think the workers are at fault. I think the worker bees were doing what they felt they needed to do. The IRS as a government entity, screwed up and in my opinion, should have taken responsibility without throwing a specific group of employees under the bus. "Low level workers" aren't working without directives.



That's fine. You aren't obligated to forgive. You're also not an American and do not have to contend with the IRS as Americans do.

I've been ready for change for a long time now and the change that we have representing us isn't the type of change that I want for America. I agree with you. It's all going downhill and I'm fearful that it may be a very very long time before we see uphill strides, if the will come when that happens.

But, the world should wise up. When we go to hell in a hand basket, a lot of folks are going to sink with us.

I don't disagree with you, but I still am not convinced that organizations were singled out specifically for promoting conservative values. The organizations that were singled out were ones that had "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their name, in addition to whoever the other 75% of applicants subjected to additional scrutiny happened to be. Given the fact that the Tea Party actually ran political candidates for Republican party nominations, I can easily see why a public servant might conclude that additional scrutiny was needed to determine whether Tea Party groups were primarily social service groups (eligible) or political campaigns (not eligible).

I also think imagining organized, intentional political persecution where it does not exist (public servants doing a questionable job of vetting tax exemption applications) is a distraction from our awareness of organized, intentional political persecution where it DOES exist (Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Kim DotCom, etc.)

 

[dawny0826]

I don't disagree with you, but I still am not convinced that organizations were singled out specifically for promoting conservative values. The organizations that were singled out were ones that had "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their name, in addition to whoever the other 75% of applicants subjected to additional scrutiny happened to be. Given the fact that the Tea Party actually ran political candidates for Republican party nominations, I can easily see why a public servant might conclude that additional scrutiny was needed to determine whether Tea Party groups were primarily social service groups (eligible) or political campaigns (not eligible).

I also think imagining political persecution where it does not exist (public servants doing a questionable job of vetting tax exemption applications) is a distraction from the political persecution where it DOES exist (Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Kim DotCom, etc.)

Like I said, it's not so much the political piece to this that bothers me. I'm not bothered by the fact that these were "conservative" groups. And I can see from a processing/administrative standpoint that this could have panned out several different ways and perhaps it's been perceived as something that it wasn't intended to be.

So, I'm not so much approaching this as an ugh...the IRS is attacking conversative groups. But, when the IRS issues a public apology, Americans have the right to ask, "Why?" Why did you target these groups?

My issue is moreso with the government itself and the fact that when you can't trust a government agency that you're supporting through your tax dollars, and they admit that they've done stupid things, be it intentional or not, it is a big deal to Americans.

When you're fearful that it'll happen to you, when you submit your own application for non-profit status...it is a big deal.

 

[Alceste]

Like I said, it's not so much the political piece to this that bothers me. I'm not bothered by the fact that these were "conservative" groups. And I can see from a processing standpoint this working several ways, as you've stated. Perhaps this wasn't intentional, but, it was still handled incorrectly. The people whose applications were delayed were still impacted.

So, I'm not so much approaching this as a ugh...the IRS is attacking conversative groups. It's not like that for me. My issue is with the system itself that I'm supporting through my tax dollars and my distrust that this system is working as it's supposed to.

For that reason, I don't blame groups, conservative or otherwise, for stepping up and making a big deal out of it. The government shouldn't control the people. We should be able to hackle our government when they do ******* things, even if it isn't doesn't appear to be a big deal.

It is a big deal when your community non-profit is delayed non-profit status because the IRS is being a *********.

Sure, criticism is vital. Reasonable criticism is the most effective kind. The IRS had unclear standards and procedures for what constitutes a primarily non-political organization. Perhaps it's also excessive to require 90 pages of documentation from anyone, including the applications that need additional scrutiny to determine whether or not they are primarily non-political.

If they resolve those issues, great! If they make a decision as to where the boundary between political and non-political lies and publish it clearly, they can save most of the Tea Party Republican political candidates' campaigns the hassle of applying in the first place, since they will already know they are not eligible.

I don't think shrieking and ranting about the persecution of conservative speech and politically targeted IRS audits that never happened is ever going an effective form of criticism. Any reasonable person will dismiss it as a tin hat conspiracy theory. Sure, you can wring some apologetic statements out of high ranking officials if you spin the optics hard enough, but after that you're still stuck with unclear guidelines for what is or isn't an eligible organization and an onerous application process.

 

[esmith]

Ok, so what did they do? They scrutinized applications for tax exempt status to determine whether or not the applicants were eligible. That's their job. To make their job more efficient, some staff took an inappropriate short cut and threw all the tea party applications on the "request further info" pile. This all happened during the Bush administration. The IRS recently brought the problem to light, apologized to the affected groups and revised their policies and procedures.

Is any part of this summary factually incorrect, in your view?

Yes the majority of it.
Fact 1 the majority of the targeting of conservative groups took place during the time period of the 2010 to 2012. You do realize that Bush wasn't president then don't you?.
Fact 2. Why did the IRS request irrelevant information from targeted groups? For instance the following:
IRS To Conservative Group: Please Tell Us About The Content Of Your Prayers

IRS asked Colorado conservative groups for names of friends, donors - The Denver Post

Records show IRS officials independently targeted conservative training materials in 'pretty big invasion of privacy' | The Daily Caller
From Rand Paul: IRS scandal needs more than a scapegoat - CNN.com

a 9/12 group filed for 501(c)(4) status in December of 2010. It received its first correspondence almost immediately, saying there would be a determination within 90 days. Fourteen months later, the IRS requested answers to 30 questions with sub-bullets -- 88 total separate inquiries -- and gave only a two-week period to comply.
The Kentucky 9/12 Project's Eric Wilson estimated that it would have taken 5,000 pages to respond.
Eventually, the IRS granted granted this group tax-exempt status -- after well over a year. We wanted to find out why they had to wait. We wanted to find out what groups, and how many, might have been victims of political discrimination.

I could supply more, but I think you might get the idea.

All the rest of this "story" (OMG FREE SPEECH IS UNDER ATTACK!!!) is spin, spin, spin.

Yes it is spin, spin, spin by the political left.

 

[dawny0826]

Sure, criticism is vital. Reasonable criticism is the most effective kind. The IRS had unclear standards and procedures for what constitutes a primarily non-political organization. Perhaps it's also excessive to require 90 pages of documentation from anyone, including the applications that need additional scrutiny to determine whether or not they are primarily non-political..

I agree with you.

Clear, concise and uniform guidelines should be available to any group applying for non-profit status.

If they resolve those issues, great! If they make a decision as to where the boundary between political and non-political lies and publish it clearly, they can save most of the Tea Party Republican political candidates' campaigns the hassle of applying in the first place, since they will already know they are not eligible.

Yes.

I don't think shrieking and ranting about the persecution of conservative speech and politically targeted IRS audits that never happened is ever going an effective form of criticism. Any reasonable person will dismiss it as a tin hat conspiracy theory. Sure, you can wring some apologetic statements out of high ranking officials if you spin the optics hard enough, but after that you're still stuck with unclear guidelines for what is or isn't an eligible organization and an onerous application process.

I have not discussed persecution of conservative speech or IRS audits.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes it is spin, spin, spin by the political left.

To be fair, some on that side of the aisle take it fairly & seriously.
Democrat Baucus warns: More to come out on IRS scandal | WashingtonExaminer.com
Chris Matthews: Obama 'Thrill' Gone - Business Insider

 

[Alceste]

I agree with you.

Clear, concise and uniform guidelines should be available to any group applying for non-profit status.



Yes.



I have not discussed persecution of conservative speech or IRS audits.

Then we agree! Awesome.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well it seems that Obama is the typical lawyer. When asked a direct question don't answer it, but appear to answer it with a CYA answer. It seems that Juliana Goldman of Bloomberg asked Obama if anyone in the White House knew about the IRS scandal and ole "I know nothing" said he only heard about the IG report from the news. Come on Mr President, the lady asked you a question and instead of answering it you don't answer it directly but give a CYA answer. Now isn't it obvious that either he doesn't want to answer the question because it makes him look bad or is in charge of the most incompetent staff in the world. So, for those of you who want supporting evidence of either incompetence, stupidity, or attempt to cover it up I submit the following:

The PJ Tatler » Flash: Obama Carefully Issues Non-Denial Denial in IRS Scandal (Updated)
White House counsel should resign if she knew about IRS abuses - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
NYT: Obama Administration Aware of IRS Scandal 5 Months Before Election

I see...so once again..all roads lead back to Obama....is this your contention?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why were conservative groups being targeted in the first place.

Seems as though the uptick in request were from Tea party/conservative groups is why.....

You make it appear like such an easy issue to forgive as if those who object to what's been done, primarily conservatives, I'm sure, are out of line if they don't just accept the apology and move on.

You know an apology will never be enough for these people. Come on. The (taxed enough already) party would like that agency abolished. Chris Matthews from MSNBC was burping and slobbering all over himself wanting more heads to roll. Getting rid of a couple here and there wasn't enough for him. His complaint was that a couple bad apples would spoil the whole bunch.....and people wouldn't feel that good sending in their taxes if they thought for one moment wrong doers were still on the job....Yea, like these guys have anything to do with your measly 1040 forms. Wrong department....I will say this....This is one subject many dems, repub etc. are agreeing on these days. I think it's a little over blown.

This is an example of how big government negately impacts the lives of Americans.

Hardly. More boot is on your neck from your local government than you realize.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why were conservative groups being targeted in the first place.

There is this possibility...
Schumer, Franken urged IRS to target tea party in 2012 | The Daily Caller

Long before the Internal Revenue Service revealed it had improperly targeted conservative 501(c) (4) groups, a group of Democratic senators led by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer urged the IRS to do just that. The IRS’s admission last Friday that it had singled out tea party and other groups for extra audits and delays has raised concerns that President Barack Obama’s administration quietly attempted to stymy opponents through intimidation. But many prominent Democrats — including Montana Sen. Max Baucus, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the New York Times editorial board — had been publicly calling for tighter restrictions on 501(c) (4) groups affiliated with the tea party and conservatives.

Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS.

This makes more sense than the other explanation offered....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/irs-scandal-steven-miller_n_3292408.html

Democrats noted that part of the problem the agency was dealing with was a huge surge in applications for tax-exempt status under the 501(c)4 section of the tax code, and that the vast majority of them were from conservative groups.

If it were really about coping with an increased work load, then to intensify the approval process & even begin audits (eg, thorough records reviews) of some applicants would exacerbate their stated problem.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS.

How do you figure the President created a "partisan climate" within the IRS?

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you figure the President created a "partisan climate" within the IRS?

This is a rather artful rewording of what I actually said.
Care to try again with more accuracy?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is a rather artful rewording of what I actually said.
Care to try again with more accuracy?

You said....

".....as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS."

which is why I asked....

"How do you figure the President created a "partisan climate" within the IRS?"

Were you not making the claim that the "prez"...President was creating a partisan climate within the IRS?.....

 

[Revoltingest]

You said....
".....as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS."
which is why I asked....
"How do you figure the President created a "partisan climate" within the IRS?"
Were you not making the claim that the "prez"...President was creating a partisan climate within the IRS?.....

Let's face something. This thread has become about semantics, deflection, dismissal, ad hominems, & taunts. You altered what I said, & now you abbreviate what I said, thereby changing the meaning again. I'll answer sincere questions, but I'm not playing the game of answering a loaded question, ie, asking me to justify something I clearly did not say. Do you care to try again, asking a question based upon my complete statement?

 

[dawny0826]

Seems as though the uptick in request were from Tea party/conservative groups is why......

Then, why the public admittance that they screwed up?

As I explained to Alceste, I don't have a problem with logical procedure, but, when you admit that you screw up and in the process call out your worker bees for your admitted screw ups, something is amiss.

You know an apology will never be enough for these people. Come on. The (taxed enough already) party would like that agency abolished. Chris Matthews from MSNBC was burping and slobbering all over himself wanting more heads to roll. Getting rid of a couple here and there wasn't enough for him. His complaint was that a couple bad apples would spoil the whole bunch.....and people wouldn't feel that good sending in their taxes if they thought for one moment wrong doers were still on the job....Yea, like these guys have anything to do with your measly 1040 forms. Wrong department....I will say this....This is one subject many dems, repub etc. are agreeing on these days. I think it's a little over blown..

I'm not particularly into the theatrics myself. But, I do feel for the people who are genuine when submitting that application and are then subjected to bull from the IRS. It's an issue of trust. It's not as if this government organization is one that most of us have an extraordinary amount of confidence in and love for anyway.

Hardly. More boot is on your neck from your local government than you realize.

I assure you that I do not discriminate when it comes to my disdain for big government, be it on the local, state or federal level.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let's face something. This thread has become about semantics, deflection, dismissal, ad hominems, & taunts. You altered what I said, & now you abbreviate what I said, thereby changing the meaning again. I'll answer sincere questions, but I'm not playing the game of answering a loaded question, ie, asking me to justify something I clearly did not say. Do you care to try again, asking a question based upon my complete statement?

No....I wanted to know what you meant by "...as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS."

Now, I don't feel as though I altered what you said. I could have taken it out of context which is why I was asking an honest question for clarification.....

 

[Revoltingest]

No....I wanted to know what you meant by "...as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS."
Now, I don't feel as though I altered what you said. I could have taken it out of context which is why I was asking an honest question for clarification.....

I don't buy it. The full sentence from which you so craftily extracted that text reads.....

Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS.

I see a very different meaning from what you deliberately portray. I describe a situation,
which includes the president. You seek to make it solely about the president, ie, a straw man.
(For your convenience, I've underlined the portion which was previously invisible to you.)

Now, what would a reasonable person deduce about your intent, when you repeatedly misrepresent
what I said, despite being informed of the 'error'?